PSEG to file court order seeking temporary access to properties along MPRP to review land
PSEG needs to access properties in order to conduct field studies along the route of the Maryland Piedmont Reliability Project (MPRP), a 500,000-volt line that will extend for almost 70 miles across Frederick, Baltimore and Carroll counties.
In Frederick County, the MPRP would run through the southeastern and southern parts of the county near New Market and Ijamsville, continue toward Buckeystown and Adamstown, and end at the Doubs substation.
Maryland is requiring that PSEG conduct these studies, which will help illustrate the full environmental effects of the MPRP, to move the project forward.
Thousands of residents and many elected officials from around Maryland have mobilized against the project and have expressed fear, anger and frustration about the MPRP cutting through properties or possibly hurting the environment.
PSEG has a contract with PJM Interconnection, the company that coordinates electricity movement in 13 states and Washington, D.C., to build the MPRP to address anticipated increases in power demand.
Part of this increased demand is due to new data centers to be sited in Maryland and Virginia, which are estimated to require up to 7,500 megawatts of electricity.
Additionally, PJM has said that 11,000 megawatts of power generation across the grid have recently been deactivated while power demand continues growing.
PSEG sent out about 800 letters in the fall to the owners of about 600 tracts of property who will be impacted by the MPRP route. Some of the land parcels have multiple owners.
For months, land agents on behalf of PSEG have been reaching out to affected property owners to discuss the company temporarily accessing properties to conduct environmental surveys and field studies.
Some owners have been offered compensation of $1,000 for a temporary right-of-entry. Most people have either not responded or denied PSEG's requests.
Jason Kalwa, the project's director, said field data is used for most permits to confirm environmental conditions. He emphasized that gaining temporary access to properties through this court order would not be the same as PSEG using eminent domain.
Eminent domain is a governmental power to seize private property for public use with just compensation.
PSEG will not have access to the properties anymore after completing the field surveys.
A judge would decide how much time to grant.
'The property owners are not giving up any other rights. This is temporary access. This is effectively to allow our experts, environmental and otherwise, to walk on the property, take an assessment of what they see there,' Kalwa said in an interview.
'... It's not eminent domain. It gives us no permanent rights to the property. It merely gives us access to the property to conduct surveys, which are necessary for many types of permits out there.'
PSEG is asking for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Maryland Public Service Commission as part of developing the MPRP.
This certificate authorizes the construction or modification of a new generating station or high-voltage transmission lines and is necessary for the MPRP to move forward.
'The MPRP will prevent extensive, severe, and widespread thermal overloads and voltage collapse conditions (reliability violations) from occurring on the bulk transmission system that serves Maryland electric customers and the surrounding region,' PSEG said in its application.
On March 26, the Power Plant Research Program, which is part of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, said PSEG's certificate application is incomplete — it doesn't have enough information on alternative project routes or specific environmental and socioeconomic impacts.
The Maryland Public Service Commission said on Jan. 10 that it would start making a procedural schedule to move the application forward once the Power Plant Research Program deemed the application as complete.
The program said PSEG didn't provide 'any discussion detailing why each of the alternative routes other than the proposed route ... were rejected and instead, focuses on why the proposed route was selected.'
The program also said the application doesn't adequately show the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of the MPRP's construction and operation.
Specifically, the application doesn't include field studies, which are necessary to verify that the MPRP's impacts are correctly documented and appropriate mitigation actions are taken.
The program said the application lacked these field-based surveys:
* Wetland delineations
* Forest stand delineations
* Geotechnical surveys
* Surveys on sensitive species project review areas
* Maryland Historical Trust-required field surveys
'Without field-based information, [the program] cannot fully evaluate the Project's impacts to Maryland's socioeconomic and natural resources,' the program said in a letter to the Public Service Commission dated March 26.
The Power Plant Research Program said it isn't opposed to scheduling a prehearing conference for PSEG's application to set a limited procedural schedule, but it still needs more information outlined in its letter to finish assessing PSEG's application.
Once it's determined that the application is complete, further procedural dates can be scheduled.
Need to seek judicial support
The same day the program gave its letter to the commission, PSEG filed a response asking for a prehearing conference to be held to create a procedural schedule so the MPRP can be built by June 1, 2027 — the date that PJM said the MPRP has to start operating.
To meet this deadline, PSEG has to start constructing the transmission line by January and therefore needs a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity by then.
PSEG also wants the conference to be held to rule on more than 170 petitions to intervene, most of which were filed by people with properties on or near the MPRP route.
A petition to intervene is a request to become a formal party in a case and be able to actively participate in the legal process and influence the outcome of a project.
PSEG also asked the Public Service Commission to determine its application is complete for the purpose of setting a procedural schedule.
The company said the information the Power Plant Research Program wants 'go to issues that [the program] would like to better understand and not as required information that is missing' under Maryland law.
Still, PSEG anticipated that the Power Plant Research Program would ask for field studies, which is why the company has been trying to access properties. Its response says that where 'necessary and appropriate, the Company may also need to seek judicial support to conduct the surveys.'
Bill Smith, a PSEG spokesperson, said the court filing PSEG plans to submit on April 15 will involve getting temporary access to about 90 properties.
There will be multiple filings requesting temporary access if PSEG can't negotiate with the remaining property owners for voluntary rights-of-entry.
The company is still willing to have discussions with landowners regarding compensation for rights-of-entry to avoid taking court action.
Kalwa said PSEG is aware that some property owners are extremely hostile to the company and won't welcome the idea of company representatives walking on their land.
'The safety and security of our team, the contractors that work for us, members of the public are of utmost importance. ... We just ask for folks' patience throughout all of this. We understand it's difficult,' he said.
'For the folks that don't want to talk to us, if they could, if they'd be willing to have a conversation with us, I think they'll find us to be reasonable, and hopefully, that'll calm some of their fears.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
27-06-2025
- New York Post
How the Big Beautiful Bill will lower energy costs, shore up the electric grid — and unleash American prosperity
How much would you pay for an Uber if you didn't know when it would pick you up or where it was going to drop you off? Probably not much. Yet this is the same effect that variable generation sources like wind and solar have on our power grids. Advertisement You never know if these energy sources will actually be able to produce electricity when you need it — because you don't know if the sun will be shining or the wind blowing. Even so, the federal government has subsidized these sources for decades, resulting in higher electricity prices and a less stable grid. President Donald Trump knows what to do: Eliminate green tax credits from the Democrats' so-called Inflation Reduction Act, including those for wind and solar power. Advertisement The One Big Beautiful Bill seeks to do that: Along with other proposals, like canceling billions in Biden Green New Deal money and making much-needed investments in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it aims to set an aggressive end date for these subsidies and build on the president's push for affordable, abundant, and secure energy for the nation. The House bill begins phasing out these tax credits within three years, saving hundreds of billions for American taxpayers. As secretary of energy — and someone who's devoted his life to advancing energy innovation to better human lives — I, too, know how these Green New Deal subsidies are fleecing Americans. Wind and solar subsidies have been particularly wasteful and counterproductive. Advertisement One example: The Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit was first introduced in 1992, when wind energy was a nascent industry. This tax credit, originally set to phase out in 1999, was sold on a promise of low-cost energy with fewer tradeoffs. Since 1999, the REPTC has been extended a whopping 12 times, yet consumers continue to pay more on average for their home electric bills than in 1992, even after adjusting for inflation. Plus, today, more than 75% of US electricity comes from natural gas, nuclear and coal — and they supply it 24/7, independent of the weather. Climate change activists are predictably up in arms over efforts to end the subsidies. But like Uber rides, energy generation is pointless if it flunks the test of reliable delivery. Advertisement At 8 p.m. on Inauguration Day, amid bitter cold across much of the Eastern seaboard, we reached peak demand for electricity in the mid-Atlantic region. At that point in time, PJM Interconnection, which supplies the Mid-Atlantic United States, got approximately 44% of its power from coal, 24% from natural gas, 25% from nuclear, 3% from oil, 3% from wind, 1% from hydro and 0% from solar. Think about that: When Americans most needed dependable power to heat their homes and businesses to stay alive, solar and wind were non-factors. Our homes, hospitals and businesses only continued to operate because there was enough reliable, baseload energy from natural gas, coal and nuclear available to meet demand. How valuable is a teammate who occasionally shows up for practice but is never there at game time? And the more we load our grid with intermittent generation, the worse the grid performs during times of maximum stress and demand. Subsidies are meant to drive prices down and boost supply. But subsidizing wind and solar has done exactly the opposite. These sources force grid operators to maintain two separate systems — one for legacy power and another for renewable sources. Advertisement When wind and solar come online, legacy resources must be scaled back. But it's difficult to store electricity from wind and solar. So when wind and solar aren't available at times of peak demand, reliable baseload sources must scale up. Bottom line: higher costs. Indeed, wind and solar subsidies not only cost taxpayers but also force providers to add more dispatchable resources to the grid, at their expense. These costs are then passed on to ratepayers. Advertisement In other words, more wind and solar brings us the worst of two worlds: less reliable energy delivery and higher electric bills. It's time to stop subsidizing such insanity in perpetuity. If sources are truly economically viable, let's allow them to stand on their own, and stop forcing Americans to pick up the tab if they're not. Since Day 1, President Trump has been focused on lowering energy costs and promoting affordable, reliable and secure energy sources. Advertisement The One Big Beautiful Bill brings us one step closer to cementing this legacy — and unleashing economic prosperity for the American people. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright is a self-described energy nerd turned entrepreneur. He's spent his entire career in the energy industry, working in oil and gas, nuclear, solar and geothermal.
CBS News
25-06-2025
- CBS News
Maryland residents appeal approved property access for controversial power line project
Maryland residents in the path of the controversial Piedmont Reliability Project are appealing after a federal judge granted surveyors access to their properties. The project aims to build nearly 70 miles of overhead power lines through three counties. On June 20, New Jersey-based developer PSEG Renewable Transmission was granted permission for surveyors to be on properties to assess the project. The power lines would go through Baltimore, Carroll, and Frederick counties. The project would construct 500,000-volt overhead power lines that would connect to an existing transmission line in parts of Maryland. According to PSEG, Maryland will face an increased energy deficit and power grid congestion if capacity does not increase. Filing submitted to survey properties In April, despite pushback from Maryland property owners, PSEG submitted a court filing that would force residents to allow surveyors onto their land. The developer said surveying must be complete before proceeding with the construction. PSEG's Temporary Right to Entry filing asked the court to allow the surveying of 91 properties for the project. Maryland property owners fight back Landowners and lawyers say the proposed project could have negative environmental impacts and would impede personal property. "It's going to start at the top of my hill, take out that forest there, which is an old-growth oak forest," landowner Brandon Hill said. "It's going to cut across my field here, render this whole field here not usable." "For a project that really doesn't help the grid, that really impacts their properties without great benefit to Maryland," added attorney Susan Euteneuer. Some residents told WJZ that the power lines would cut through family-owned farms. A faith-based youth camp and outdoor education center in Carroll County said the project would jeopardize the camp experience that they provide to guests, since the transmission line would go through their property. Hereford resident Janet Stratton said her farm, which has been passed down for six generations, is in the path of the proposed transmission line. "I realized my childhood dream 30 years ago," Stratton said. "To have it taken away would be devastating." The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) said the project poses risks to the bay's habitat and water quality. The CBF found that the project has the potential to damage protected forests, nutrient-rich wetlands, and sources of clean water.
Yahoo
24-06-2025
- Yahoo
Unclear when court-granted surveys begin in power line project
It's not the news landowners were hoping to hear from federal court. "Obviously, we were very disappointed," executive director of River Valley Ranch Jon Bisset said. Last Friday, a judge ruled in favor of the Public Service Enterprise Group, granting them temporary access to more than 100 properties across Baltimore, Carroll and Frederick counties to conduct surveys required as part of their proposed Piedmont Reliability project. See more:
